[Tom4784]

People don't get suspended or axed for nothing, if it was just an accusation without merit then the BBC wouldn't act, there's got to be evidence that the claim is true for employers to take action.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People don't get suspended or axed for nothing, if it was just an accusation without merit then the BBC wouldn't act, there's got to be evidence that the claim is true for employers to take action.

he wasnt axed he voluntarily left

[Livia]

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now. I my opinion it's swung too far with people still being named and suspended... and consequently people imagine wrongly that there's no smoke without fire. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Matthew Kelly, Jimmy Tarbuck... all charges against these men were dropped but people still think they're guilty. Meanwhile all the accusers are in blissful anonymity.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Livia

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now. I my opinion it's swung too far with people still being named and suspended... and consequently people imagine wrongly that there's no smoke without fire. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Matthew Kelly, Jimmy Tarbuck... all charges against these men were dropped but people still think they're guilty. Meanwhile all the accusers are in blissful anonymity.

Just because they didn't have evidence doesn't mean they are all innocent either though. (Unless they had actual evidence that proves the accuser was lying like in the Michael Le Vell case)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Just because they didn't have evidence doesn't mean they are all innocent either though. (Unless they had actual evidence that proves the accuser was lying like in the Michael Le Vell case)

Actually it does mean they're innocent. They are innocent because they were not proven guilty. I know that in the Jim Davidson case, he proved that the car in which he was supposed to have raped someone was 200 miles away on that night. I don't know much about the other cases but presumably they weren't let off without any evidence being presented in their defence.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually it does mean they're innocent. They are innocent because they were not proven guilty. I know that in the Jim Davidson case, he proved that the car in which he was supposed to have raped someone was 200 miles away on that night. I don't know much about the other cases but presumably they weren't let off without any evidence being presented in their defence.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/

So, even though there is insufficient - or even no evidence - and no way to prove he is innocent, you think he should be guilty? No man has any chance of clearing his name once he's accused then? So he's damned for all time on the say-so of someone who may remain anonymous.

Luckily the onus is for the prosecution to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they can't, then he's innocent. And until some of these men who have gone through the court case and come out the other side, start suing people who publish stuff insinuating that 'insufficient evidence' means 'guilty', then people are going to continue to assume that if he has a cock, he's probably a rapist.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

As soon as an allegation is made the BBC act. Well, they do now. I think they were so remiss with the whole Jimmy Saville thing, they're desperate to be seen to be taking this stuff seriously now.

I'm gonna keep this vague but a job I occasionally take (usually over summer/Christmas hols/big events) relates to the BBC and child protection, and they exceed the requirements every time.